> > That's aggregated load time, and not a single page loading time. The test > comprised of navigating to multiple pages to generate more real life > scenario. >
How many pages? > > > 3. text/html , which is the output of django app, is taking 62.74 % > > time. > > This number might not be bad actually, taking into consideration that I aim > to reduce the number of http connections per page to something pretty low. > Number of connections/page will not bring down this figure. > > What is the payload of your html page ? > > 5- 10 Kb (compressed) on avg depending upon page content > > Since you thought the aggregated load time to be of a single page, I guess > your perspectives need to change accordingly. :) Possibly but that would depend on number of pages in testing. e.g. if the number of pages about 10+ it seems logical but if its 2-3 pages then its still on high side. Also the load time increases near linearly with number of users. Which doesn't sounds logical e.g. at peak its almost 3 miunutes. rgds vivek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
